There is a debate, subdued at times, between various approaches toward changing the planet to the better. In many ways, my viewpoint (on the optimist side) tends toward the 'enviro-capitalist', thinking that we can work to structure the economy to make the right choice, the easy (and preferred) choice. There is a challenge between using financial mechanisms as a tool to move toward a A Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society and going overboard.
an alliance of sixty leading activists, scholars, economists, researchers and writers formed to stimulate new thinking, joint activity, and public education in response to economic globalization ...
While not necessarily in full agreement with these 60, they make me think (and think hard).
Amid all the Earth Day/Week greenwashing, with all the green packaging in the stores, it is worth thinking about the difference between greening our choices (and fostering a more sustainable lifestyle/economy) and using Green as an excuse for ever more consumption.
We got the idea together just by talking and laughing about the absurdity of the notion that the way out of this planetary crisis -- which is deeply rooted in overuse of scarce resources -- is to go out and "shop to save the planet." Among many false solutions now coming at us, it is surely the most peculiar, but so American: every crisis viewed as a new business growth opportunity.
This is an important point with a lot of truth to it.
When we talk about dealing with Global Warming as "good for the economy", we risk falling into this trap. There are many economic values for ways to deal with Global Warming (such as increasing energy efficiency reducing waste) that will improve economic performance. The traditional economic measures (metrics) all emphasize increased consumption. If we were, suddenly, to have exactly the same life-style (albeit with far less pollution) using half the energy, formal economic measures would show a worsened economy (since there would be fewer dollars going into Exxon's bank accounts). Dollars spent wastefully "count" just the same as those spent effectively. The real way that dealing with Global Warming will be "good" for the economy is when we are able to be more holistic in our understanding of "economy", to understand that people's health and well-being "count" as well, that having a sustainable environment for future generations counts as well, that there is no legitimacy for "external" costs in our accounting any longer.
Obviously the better answer is less use of energy, materials, consumption, not more, as we said in the video. And to separate fake solutions (like "clean coal" and "clean nuclear" and industrialized large-scale biofuels) from real ones.
Reduce end-use consumption (efficiency, conservation, changing our choices) and efficiency throughou the system and clean energy, those are real solutions. Not 'less-deadly coal' ...
What is IFG's take on globalization?
The modern economic globalization model (since the 1946 Bretton Woods meetings) depends upon four impossible conditions:
1. Continuous rates of high economic growth for global corporations, and for the overall system itself. That idea is itself preposterous on a finite planet. The growth itself depends on:
2. Ever-increasing access to supplies of (inexpensive) natural resources, especially cheap energy and inexpensive global transport, arable soils, and water.
3. Third, always increasing new markets.
4. Fourth, always expanding supplies of cheap labor.
Do we live in a world without limits? IFG would say no.
Global corporations had a field day over the past five decades, while all of those things were in abundant supply. But we live on a finite planet: limited resources, limited sinks, limited rates of recovery, limited carrying capacity.
"limited ..."
The ecological limits of the planet are now in clear view, as expressed by the combination of climate change, peak oil (the end of the era of cheap energy), and overall global resource depletion and extinctions. We call this "The Triple Crisis."
"Peak" atmospheric / ocean ability to safely absorb our pollution; peak of inexpensive and easy to access oil and other resources, and the extinction threat. Yup, this is a triple crisis worth at least some attention, even among primary wars.
Okay, there is GreenSumption and there is sensible action. Sierra Club and Representative Brian Baird (D-WA) are calling
on taxpayers to spend their economic stimulus checks on energy efficient products and services
Now, perhaps it would have been better if the stimulus package had measures for energy efficiency and renewable energy in it, no? Instead, people will use it to try to buy non-available rice at Costco and buy (soon-to-be) $4 gasoline. (How many miles will your rebate check take you?)
something that will stimulate the economy, save consumers money on their energy bills, help fight global warming, and could double the financial benefit of their stimulus checks if spent on products such as home insulation that are already eligible for additional tax credits.
These are great measures. Really like the idea of multiplying tax free (at least tax free on the recipient as these stimulus checks actually represent tax increases on the unborn, who will burdened with paying for them) stimulus check benefits with buying things to get even more tax benefits.
They are also calling on businesses to give "promotions and other incentive to encourage consumers to participate in the campaign".
"Consumers ..." Are we risking crossing a line into GreenSumption?
From Carl Pope, Sierra Club's Executive Director:
"This Earth Day the Sierra Club is telling people 'We can do it!' The Buy Green to Save Green campaign shows that when it comes to the economy and the environment, we can have our cake and eat it too.
Carl, did you really have to say it that way?
While we need people to recognize and speak of the environment and the economy (rather than "versus", that these are somehow (falsely) in opposition), "have our cake and eat it too ..." Nails on a blackboard.
To be fair, Carl continued:
The burgeoning clean energy economy can help put our country back on the path to prosperity, help protect consumers from skyrocketing energy costs, and fight global warming.
There is win-win-win space here. Moving toward a clean-energy (renewable energy and energy efficient) future will strengthen the economy, creating good jobs while improving the balance of payments, improve American security, improve Americans' health, etc ... all while having the corollary benefit of fighting Global Warming.
By spending their stimulus checks on energy efficient products, consumers can help put our economy back on track, help the environment, help save themselves money on their energy bills, and help bring the clean energy future to life.
Carl is right. People can spend this money wisely ... or not. Sadly, the stimulus package was not structured in a way to boost near-term economic performance while strengthening the economy and society for the future. "The people know best how to spend their money" is a refrain that we will hear. Well, this isn't always the case. And, The Wisdom of Crowds isn't always wise for the greater good. "Crowds" sometimes perform better with a little guidance
But Carl's words about the win-win-win space that Going Green will put some green (money) into the economy and into our pockets is an important message. We can provide a more prosperous path as working to Energize America can foster a sustainable and prosperous climate friendly society. And, spending one's stimulus check to insulate one's home, buy compact fluorescent lightbulbs, plant a vegetable garden for 100-foot (rather than 1000 mile) food, etc are ways to invest this money toward a lower polluting and lower cost future life style and society.
Treading a fine line ...
As noted, a fine line exists between Greening our Spending and GreenSumption. A sensible, sustainable society might be better fostered through using stimulus checks to pay down credit card loans and investing in the future (through, as Carl suggests, energy efficiency and other climate-friendly actions) rather than running to the store to make a purchase. While this quarter's economic figures might be sparked through GreenSumption, this is not a path toward tomorrow's stronger and more prosperous America.
NOTE to readers: I have tremendous respect for Carl, who is thoughtful, eloquent, and powerful re environmental issues ... but, come on, "cake and eat it too ..." Doesn't that sound like GreenSumption to you?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the
comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to
One needs to beware of a certain discourse in the media, that fails to question the current economics that are supporting individual, business, and policy decisions in our Western world. What is required is a paradigm shift, recognizing the existence of limits in terms of planet resources, and the need for bold actions. Not just consuming greener and smarter, but consuming less. It is a matter of simple maths. There is only so much our planet can handle, period.
Fact: one cannot buy or consume one's way to sustainability. To see proof of this fact, read Derrick Jensen. And wake up.
Another fact. The human species will be damn lucky to see the light of morning of January 1, 2100. The writing's on the wall. Corporatism, herdism, consumption: the three great evils of our time, to be defended to the death by the cogs and suburbanites and all those unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, downsize, and same themselves, not to mention their progeny.
Since there are few very flying insects entering my house, I observed that the lizards eat the ants by waiting along their trail and picking them off one by one like a sushi bar. When the ants are aplenty the lizards beside messing the walls also multiply. As soon as the food source dwindles so does the lizards and the cycle repeats itself. I also observe that the lizards do not practice conservation. They just do what comes naturally when resources are plentiful, that is, eat, sleep and multiply.
Us humans are no different, although we have a bigger brain we seldom use it to do good for others.
So now that we are in dire straits, although late then never, it is time to take action individually and globally to save ourselves. As living individuals we don't waste, follow ancient wisdom such as 'want not , waste not', 'eat to live and not live to eat' and most of all have compassion towards each other and also all other living creatures. As for global action, get your backside off your seat and go vote for a leader who will protect the enviroment!
Lets keep the ideas of saving mankind simple and practical.
Real cause of our problems;- One observation I made from the ants and lizards living in the cracks and crevices in my house, is at different time, there are plenty of ants around. Some specialise in finiding sugar in a closed jar, their body is so small and flat that they can even enter the tiny area between the thread of a spin cap. While others are speedy gonzales scurrying about the floor and table finding for crumbs. Then there are also the lizards living behind the picture frames and cupboards. When they have an abundant of food they will make a mess on the wall and floor. At times their numbers also dwindle.
Isn't it marvelous? The environmental movement has been co-opted by the republicans. What was it that George W. H. Bush told Americans to do after September 11th? "Go out and shop."
Dude it's all thanks to those jerks at NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund ... all of the seventh big green environmental organizations what a bunch of disingenuous hypocrites. They sold America on a bill of goods so that they could get funding from the very corporations who are now portrayed as green.
"Changing the planet for the better"... that one phrase says why it is that we must be such idiots to think such a thing is possible. Define the work "better". Is there some way to hobble the engines of economy that bring to poor people the very remedy they seek; energy to make us comfortable and healthy and productive. As a matter of fact there is; it's called Kyoto. Oh, with the added benefit of allowing the single greatest emitter of soot and atmospheric heavy metals to continue to emit those with no restraint until they have enough billionaires, skyscrapers and military to feel satisfied.
There is no ideal climate...only the one we're used to, and that unfortunately is not something we can hold on to. Whether the ice caps melt of not, the coastal regions are going to change just as they have...to bad our engineers aren't designing for it, though we could if we didn't waste our efforts on trying to controll by CO2 ppms the climate we happen to have, and which many of us happen to like, right now.
Whether we like it or not the Hadley cells will shift and droughts will happen. Even if CO2 could be controlled by us to with a few ppm, the climate will still change and we'll be fools if we don't plan with an infrastructure and relationship with nature that gives us the ability to use foresight to stop polluting it with soot, mercury and stupidity.
They can call it what they want, but massive change needs to take place immediately. The worst offenders will be the last to change, and they will be the loudest voices trying to discredit the simple fact that we are harming our world to the point of our extinction.
My wife loves all kinds of Li Hing Mui . . . and crack seed in general. We always have some powder in the house and she stocks up on seed whenever she goes to visit her mother in Monterey Park (lots of Asian groceries). There's a place near us (we're in So Cal) that sells shave ice (da kine, brah, not sno-cone) which you can sprinkle Li Hing Mui powder on. Too salty for this moderate hypertensive, but it's there. It's not green, though. It's orange.
We brought our 1999 manufactured home in 2005 with the previous occupants' furnishings, kitchen tools, etc. All we moved with us cross-country were our office furnishings, personal items (books, art, papers, etc.), plants, and three felines.
When we arrived, we determined many of the items weren't "us," but saw no reason to change things immediately and landfill three rooms of furniture. We've had to replace the kitchen subfloor, and, when we replace the actual flooring (for now the old linoleum is down), we are looking at either bamboo or cork.
As light bulbs need changing, we switch to compact fluorescent bulbs. Last year we put in gardens and rain barrels, and found us with at least 50 honey bees and bumble bees, and free water for irrigation.
Our living room is soon going to require furniture, and we will be looking at green solutions there as well.
We repurpose things regularly (our neighbor's perfectly good changing table is now in my mom's home office holding office supplies in its shelves and drawers, with the printer/scanner/copier/fax machine on top) and rather than buy new (for example, we need a new chandelier in the dining room), I am keeping my eyes peeled in thrift stores, resell shops, and antique stores for one we can reuse.
It takes time, especially in our current economy, but it is doable. It just means planning ahead, thinking out of the box, using one's head, and the need for discernment.
Thank you great video, I don't think club sierra is yet ready to admit the challenge of dealing with GHG under the predictable technologies scenario yet. At least not when it comes to telling their supporters lifestyles have to change and I'm talking more than smartgrowth. Here buy this works better for them.
Loading comments…
Posted April 24, 2008 | 02:29 PM (EST)